The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
but what they don't take into account is these people have less glue towards but there is less um uh probability that the the radio ligand ligand will will go there is less with one receptor into the brick so I think the fdg pet signal has to be carefully uh analyze in the sense that it could be neuronal activity but it also could be indirectly the marker vascular problems
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.